About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Samuel Lee and Barbara Lee, Plaintiffs in Error v. Elizabeth Lee 44 (1834)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0117 and id is 1 raw text is: 44 SUPREME COURT. SAMUEL LEE AND 3ARBARA LEE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR V. ELIZABETH LEE. The plaintiffs in error filed a petition for freedom in the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, and they proved that they were born in the state of Virginia, as slaves of Richard B. Lee, now de- ceased, who moved with his family into the county of Washington in the district of Columbia about the year 1816, leaving the petitioners residing in Virginia as his slaves, until the year 1820, when the petitioner Barbara was removed to the county of Alexandria in the district of Columbia, where she was hired to Mrs Muir, and continued with her thus hired for the period of one year. That the petitioner Sam was in like manner removed to the county of Alexandria, and was hired to general Walter Jones for a period of about fiv or six months. That after the expiration of the said pleriods of hiring, the petitioners were removed to the said county of Washington, where they continued to reside as the slaves of the said Richard B. Lee until his death, and since as the slaves of his widow, the defendant. On the part of the defendant in error a preliminary objection was made to the jurisdiction of this court, growing out of the act of congress of the 2d of April 1816, which declares that no cause shall be removed from the circuit court for the district of Columbia to the supreme court by appeal or writ of error, unless the matter in dispute shall be of the value of one thousand dollars, or upwards. By the court. The matder in dispute in this case, is the freedom of the peti- tioners. The judgment of the court below is against their claims to free- dom; the matter in dispute is, therefore, to the plaintiffs in error, the value of their freedom, and this is not susceptible of a pecuniary valuation. Had the judgment been in favour of the petitioners, and the writ of error brought by the party claiming to be the owner, the value of thme slaves as property, would have been the matter in dispute, and affidavits might be admitted to ascertain such value. But affidavits, estimating the value of freedom, are entirely inadmissible; and no doubt is entertained of the jurisdiction of the court. The circuit court refused to instruct the jury that if they should believe from the evidence that the bringing the petitioners from Virginia to Alexandria, by their owner, and hiring them there, was merely colourable, with intent to evade the law, that then the petitioners are entitled to their freedom. By the Maryland law of 1796, it is declared, that it shall not be lawful to im- port or bring into this state by land or water, any negro, mulatto, or other slave for sale, or to reside within this state. And any person brought into this state as a slave, contrary to this act, if a slave before, shall thereupon cease to be the property of the person so importing, and shall be free. And by the act of congress of the 27th of February 1801, it is provided, that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they then existed, should be, and continue in force in that part of the district, which was ceded by that state to the United States.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most